User:Happytimes/Super Secret/Imperial Colonization Talk

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: New Archive for 2010Before 2009Before NachladerThe Nachlader Incident

edit Colonized article template

Should it include a date, similar to the FA template?

The poll was created at 16:15 on June 19, 2009, and so far 11 people voted.

After we have enough votes, we'll make any changes deemed necessary. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN16:22, 19 Jun

Ironically, I was thinking about adding a date before I saw this vote. If no one else wants to do it, I'll get to work on it, and should have it finished before our next colonization is done. But I really wouldn't mind at all if someone else wanted to do it. Any volunteers? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 01:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

edit changes

hello all. i've made a few policy tweaks. the big board has had all colonizers with 0 colonizations under their belt removed, because there were like ten of them. this serves to keep the template smaller and keep off the names of people who signed up in march and haven't done anything. for admission to the template, users can sign up in the designated spot, contribute to a colonization, and earn their wings. if anyone has an issue with this, please discuss. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Should people who haven't contributed in over a year go into a ready reserve/disabled players list? (On a sub-page))  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  03 Feb 2010 ~ 02:01 (UTC)

edit Signing up

How do I sign up for the Imperial Colonization? I can't edit the article where it says enter your name below. The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueSpiritGuy (talk • contribs)

You can't sign up until you've been here four or five days. It's an automatic thing to stop excess vandalism. Also it's good if you sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~ which will show your name, date and time. :) DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:34, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the help. People around here are so friendly. Except when their not. --BlueSpiritGuy 05:27, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
We're only unfriendly when you put "their" instead of "they're". Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 16:27, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies English is not my first language. This is the part where I go stand in the corner and say nothing, right?--BlueSpiritGuy 16:42, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Nah, this is the part where we make you start chugging from the beer bong, despite your protests. At Uncyclopedia, no never actually means no. It generally means "harder". Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 16:51, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
Beer bong? That is a language I do speak very well indeed.--BlueSpiritGuy 17:46, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
And by "beer bong" we mean Olipro. You'll find out about him later. Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 17:55, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of a beer bong either, and don't think I want to. From what I've seen here so far, people are either very nice and helpful, not very nice and very unhelpful, or not nice and helpful. If that helps. (But Miley Spears is very helpful, and I'm not just saying that because she's my Mommy.) WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 18:29, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
What about me? I'm both completely charming and totally useless. - T.L.B. Baloon WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:01, Sep 17
The 2+ weeks of silence suggests that no-one is jumping to defend you... Pup t 21:56, 4/10/2009
No defense was necessary. You don't have to be useful if you're charming. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:16, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

edit Imperial Colonization Buccaneer Admiral Why???

Good citizens and loyal to Her Imperial Majesty all, let it be known hereby that I, Why do I need to provide this?, do make herewith this mine declaration. Be it made known that the Uncyclopedia Imperial Colonization Admiral of the Fleet, being SysRq, has been lost at sea for many months, last being seen on the 14th of July in the Year of Our Lord 2009, in all probability due to some unprovoked provocation by a privateer with no legal letter of marque. Let it be known further that there be neither Admiral nor Vice Admiral nor Rear Admiral of the Uncyclopedian Imperial Navy, all of whom have been lost at sea for many months, in all probability due to some unprovoked provocation by a privateer with no legal letter of marque. Let it further be known that I, by letter of marque by Imperial Administrator MrN9000, do hereby declare myself to be the Imperial Privateer henceforth known as Imperial Colonization Buccaneer Admiral (BAD) WHY??? and shall, until such time I be lost at sea, or other great misfortune befall me, be Admiral in Fact of Imperial Colonization. Signed on 03:13, January 25, 2010 (UTC) by Compassrose IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems) 

edit Successful Conquests and Featured Articles

Traditionally, half of a Feature Article (FA) credit has been given to each person who participated in the Imperial Colonization of an article that got featured. As it takes one FA to become a Commander of the Order of Uncyclopedia, participating in two featured colonizations would make an editor a CUN, and would count toward the hallowed Uncyclopedia Hall of Shame. A big part of the idea, according to someone, was to encourage people to participate in IC. Also according to someone, that policy continues to hold for all articles of the past, i.e. every colonization from Al Gore to Transformers, unless the despoiled MIA Fleet Admiral SysRq said otherwise. (I believe Optimuschris and Colin "All your base" Heaney filled in during the most recent colonization).

But this is a new dawn, a new era, and other impressive talk. I would like to essentially keep that policy; I don't want a battle over whose edits are better than who else's. The idea here is that this is a collaboration; we're all in this together. And in case a previous Imperial Colonization does get featured, I have no intention of diving through its entire history checking edits. If you say you made productive edits, and the history shows your name during the colonization period, that's good enough for me.

But for future projects, I will be checking edits. Don't worry; I don't plan to be a dick about this. If you've legitimately participated, you'll get credit on the big board whether the article's featured or not. And if it is, you'll get your half FA. But if every one of an editor's edits was reverted because it was completely off topic, or if an editor's only edit was changing "a" to "an" or something else really minor, that colonizer won't get credit. At least that's my thinking right now; I'm open to suggestions from any colonizer, and that policy's not official until our next colonization begins on 7 February 2010. In the meantime, I'll be looking through all the IC talk page archives so I'll be familiar with all past discussions. Feel free to post your comments and ideas below. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 03:25, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ok , I'm temporarily retired atm, but I thought I'd throw a little reminder your way as you take on the daunting task of kitten herding that is IC. Don't forget about those that help guide you along. For instance, during Micheal Jackson, I had very little time to do much writing, but if you look at the history you'll see that I was pretty important in helping to keep the authors on track. Also, very modest. Of course, I personally don't care about templates, but some folks do. Don't leave the guys who give you advice out is all I'm trying to say. A successful collaboration also requires listening to advice from your peers, even if they're too lazy to actually write much. Or something. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN00:39, 3 Feb

edit Notice

How Colonization works" suggestion, Templates, Why not make it a monthly thing?, and the note immediately below were moved here from User talk:Why do I need to provide this?/Imperial Colonization to make it easier to keep track of discussions.

This page is, not surprisingly, for comments, suggestions, discussions, etc. of Imperial Colonization and User:Why do I need to provide this?/Imperial Colonization. What did you think it would be?

edit "How Colonization works" suggestion

Hey the page looks great! Anyway, the sections kind of run together for the different weeks, is there a way to break that up a bit?  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  27 Jan 2010 ~ 02:07 (UTC)

Good point. I'll check it out. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:09, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I spaced it out more. What think? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Still a little close. I added green to the bottom as a division to see what it looked like (after I forgot where this page was... I'm so lazy). I've got some thoughts on it... but I'm still pondering.  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  02 Feb 2010 ~ 05:13 (UTC)
The green looks fine on my screen. How does it look on other people's?
Also I realized I probably shouldn't have ended up with two talk pages for IC. Unless someone sees a problem with it, I'm going to cut and paste this one to Uncyclopedia_talk:Imperial_Colonization in the next 24 hours (probably less). WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:26, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

edit Templates

Do we want to update {{VoteCOTW}} & {{CotW}}, or just leave them alone?  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  27 Jan 2010 ~ 02:07 (UTC)

The note on CotW that it will be done on Saturday probably needs to be changed. If anyone has any ideas for changing the templates, post your ideas. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:12, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the note! Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:17, 27 January 2010
I like it, but what about "soon" instead of "eventually"? I'd like to get away from the idea that these colonizations take forever. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:22, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but three weeks isn't exactly "soon" though. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:24, 27 January 2010
Good point. But the expected time would be two weeks; the first week is for nominations and voting. Three weeks writing will, hopefully, be a rare exception. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 02:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Correction/clarification of my comment above: the expected writing time would be a week and a half; two and a half weeks writing will, hopefully, be a rare exception. If colonizers feel it's ready for Pee Review before the first week and a half is over, so be it. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 04:58, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

edit Why not make it a monthly thing?

Nom & vote 1st two weeks, edits 2nd two+ weeks. That way if the writing process takes too long the next article can be in the que so to speak? (I'm primarily basing this on the premise that some users are ok with working on two things at a time OR may only work on one project at a time if they don't work on the other for some reason (new, don't like other topic, vacation, Armageddon, etc.)  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  02 Feb 2010 ~ 04:30 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. I just finished reading through all the IC talk page archives, so have got some ideas from IC editors who've had a lot more experience with this than I have. The original concept was one week per article, but that was expanded. Almost all editors seemed to want a range of somewhere between one and three weeks, but most felt one week was too short for many articles. My general thoughts right now are to keep voting to a short period so that the drive to start writing on an article stays fresh. But some overlap might be good to keep things moving, so there's no gap in between projects. On the other hand, more than one project happening at the same time could split up an already small number of IC editors. What do the rest of you think? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 04:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts too. I don't think overlap should be a common thing... maybe the goal should be to (re)write the article in 2 weeks (possible 2-4 weeks if it takes longer) but not let it overlap into the next article's writing phase. That is to say, the ABSOLUTE end time for a project is the day before the official start of the next project. That way the overlap is only during the nom & voting phase for the next project. (It would also provide an opportunity to drive interest in IC on (interested) people's talk pages in the form of an update: "Ok, we're wrapping up <project name> right now... don't forget to nom/vote on IC's newest project." or not... whatever.)  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  02 Feb 2010 ~ 05:11 (UTC)
As of this posting, I don't see a problem with nom and voting for the next project beginning when the current project is being finished. Might help keep things moving. Thoughts, Colonizers? WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 05:19, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
All I would say is... Pick a date for when you will finish and stick to it. People need a deadline. If it slips then that should only be a VERY rare case, and is probably a sign that IC is starting to go to the dogs again anyway. If it's not "finished" it's probably better to leave it as is and move onto something which might get more interest from editors anyway. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 00:59, Feb 3
At this point, and based on IC's history, I'm tending to agree. As it stands right now, the standard would be half a week discussion and a week and a half writing. Currently, no article would go beyond two and half weeks writing. At that point, it can be moved to anyone's user space who wishes to keep working on it, but will be out of IC's que. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 01:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that. But to bring this back around to my suggestion (so I feel all superior like & stuff) how about a "target date of (say two weeks out)" and a "final date of (the day before the official start of the next project)." Thoughts?  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  03 Feb 2010 ~ 01:56 (UTC)
(Actually I don't care about the duration of the nom/vote & writing times, but I do think we should start them on the 1st of each month. That way we're on a schedule and possibly free for other things going on too.)  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  03 Feb 2010 ~ 01:58 (UTC)
Personal tools